Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Bagatsing v Ramirez

FACTS: Respondent Federation of Manila Market Vendors, Inc. seeks to nullify Ordinance No.
7522 as enacted by the Municipal Board of Manila on the ground of non-compliance with the
requirement of publication under the Revised City Charter.
The Ordinance has a mandatory requirement of publication before and after approval.
However, the petitioner stressed that only a post publication is required by the Local Tax
Code.
ISSUE: WON the subject ordinance is a tax ordinance?
WON the tax ordinance is created for public purpose?
RULING:
1. It is maintained by private respondent that the subject ordinance is not a "tax ordinance,"
because the imposition of rentals, permit fees, tolls and other fees is not strictly a taxing
power but a revenue-raising function, so that the procedure for publication under the Local
Tax Code finds no application.
This pretense bears its own marks of fallacy. One of those sources of revenue is what the
Local Tax Code points to in particular: "Local governments may collect fees or rentals for the
occupancy or use of public markets and premises . . ." 14 They can provide for and regulate
market stands, stalls and privileges, and, also, the sale, lease or occupancy thereof. They
can license, or permit the use of, lease, sell or otherwise dispose of stands, stalls or
marketing privileges.
2. Private respondent bewails that the market stall fees imposed in the disputed ordinance
are diverted to the exclusive private use of the Asiatic Integrated Corporation since the
collection of said fees had been let by the City of Manila to the said corporation.
The fees collected do not go direct to the private coffers of the corporation. Ordinance No.
7522 was not made for the corporation but for the purpose of raising revenues for the city.
So long as the purpose is public, it does not matter whether the agency through which the
money is dispensed is public or private. It is not dependent on the nature or character of the
person or corporation whose intermediate agency is to be used in applying it.

Tio v Videogram
FACTS: Petitioner attacks on the constitutionality of PD 1987, "An Act Creating the
Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram
industry.
PD 1994 amended the NIRC which provides for an annual tax of five pesos provided that the
video tapes shall be subject to sales tax.
ISSUE:
RULING:
1. Petitioner also submits that the thirty percent (30%) tax imposed is harsh and oppressive,
confiscatory, and in restraint of trade.
A tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely
deters the activities taxed.
The tax imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure
prompted by the realization that earnings of videogram establishments of around P600
million per annum have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an
additional source of revenue.
The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need
for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the
flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video
tapes.
"It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and
it has been repeatedly held that "inequities which result from a singling out of one particular
class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation.
2. Neither can it be successfully argued that the DECREE contains an undue delegation of
legislative power.
The grant of authority to the BOARD is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely
a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and
implementation.
The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily
involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its
execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
In the very language of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is
for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized agencies concerned being "subject to the
direction and control of the BOARD."

Roxas v CTA
FACTS: Don Pedro Roxas and Dona Carmen Ayala, both Spanish, transmitted to their
grandchildren by hereditary succession agricultural lands, residential houses, shares of
stocks.
On Agricultural Lands: The Government, in consonance with the constitutional mandate to
acquire big landed estates and apportion them among landless tenants-farmers persuaded
the Roxas brothers to part with their landholdings. The Roxas brothers agreed to sell 13,500
hectares to the Government but it did not have funds to cover the purchase price. Instead
Roxas brothers allowed the farmers to buy the lands for the same price but by installment.
They derived from said installment payments a net gain which was reported for income tax
purposes. In the assessment of the CIR Commissioner, the brothers engaged in a partnership
of business of real estate, hence 100% of the profits derived therefrom was taxed.
On residential houses: Jose Roxas was the one left to live in the residential house. In fairness
to his brothers, he paid rentals for the house in sum of 8,000 a year. This rental led to the
assessment for real estate dealers tax.
ISSUES:
WON: The sale of the gain derived from the sale of farm lands 100% taxable.
WON deductions for business expenses and contribution deductible.
WON they are liable for the fixed tax on real estate dealers.
RULING:
1. The sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the very farmers is a mere obedience to the
request and pursuant to the policy of our Government to allocate lands to the landless.
Roxas brothers shouldered the governments burden by selling the lands directly to the
farmers in the same way and under the same terms as would have been the case had the
Government done it itself.
It does not conform with Our sense of justice in the instant case for the Government to
persuade the taxpayer to lend it a helping hand and later on to penalize him for duly
answering the urgent call. The power of taxation is sometimes called also the power to
destroy. Therefore it should be exercised with caution to minimize injury to the proprietary
rights of a taxpayer. It must be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly, lest the tax collector
kill the "hen that lays the golden egg."
The sale, therefore, made by Roxas y Cia, to the farmers of its farmlands does not make the
company a real estate dealer, and the lands sold to the farmers are capital assets. The
2. Contributions to the Christmas funds of the Pasay City Police, Pasay City Firemen and
Baguio City Police are not deductible because the Christmas funds were not spent for public
purposes.
Section 39 (h) of the Tax Code provides that a contribution to a government entity is
deductible only when used exclusively for public purposes.
Contributions to the Philippines Heralds fund for Manilas neediest families are allowable
deductions because such contributions were not made to the Philippines Herald but to a

group of civic spirited citizens organized by the Herald solely for charitable purposes and
said citizens do not receive profits. Contributions to the Manila y Police Trust Fund constitute
allowable deductions because the trust fund belongs to the Manila Police, a government
entity intended to be used exclusively for its public functions.

Lutz v Araneta
FACTS: Plaintiff, Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme
Ledesma, seeks to recover from CIR an amount paid by the estate as taxes alleging
that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and support of
the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiffs opinion is not a public purpose.
The tax imposed was based from Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as
the Sugar Adjustment Act. It aims to to stabilize the sugar industry so as to prepare
it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the United States
market and the imposition of the export taxes.
Plaintiff assumed that Commonwealth Act No. 567 is a pure exercise of the taxing
power. The tax is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the
rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. In other words, the
act is primarily an exercise of the police power.
ISSUE: WON the tax is for public purpose.
The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that sugar production in one of the
great industries of our nation, a leading position among its export products, gives
employment, great source of the states wealth, and important sources of foreign
exchange. Its promotion, protection and advancement, therefore redounds greatly
to the general welfare.
The protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public concern.
Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its
protection and expedient for its promotion.
The legislative discretion must be allowed full play, subject only to the test of
reasonableness. It is not contended that the means provided has no relation to the
objective pursued or are oppressive. . If objective and methods are alike
constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the state may not be levy taxes to raise
funds for their prosecution and attainment.
It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of
taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that "inequalities which result from a
singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no
constitutional limitation"

Gomez v Palomar
FACTS: Petitioner mailed a letter at the post office in San Fernando, Pampanga.
However, it did not bear the special anti-TB stamp so it was returned to him.
He bought a suit to test the constitutionality of the statute contending that it
violates the equal protection clause, rule of uniformity and equality of taxation. The
lower court declared the statute and the orders unconstitutional.
To help raise funds for the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, the Director of Posts shall
order the printing and issue of semi-postal stamps with face value showing the
regular postage charge plus the additional amount of five centavos for the said
purpose. No mail matter shall be accepted in the mails unless it bears such semipostal stamps.
The proceeds shall constitute a special fund and be deposited with the National
Treasury to be expended by the Philippine Tuberculosis Society in carrying out its
noble work to prevent and eradicate tuberculosis.
WON the statute is violative of the Consitution. WON the tax is levied for public
purpose.
RULING:
1. It is said that the statute is violative of the equal protection clause of the
Constitution such that that it constitutes mail users into a class for the purpose of
the tax while leaving untaxed the rest of the population (exemption to newspapers).
The 5-centavo levied is in the nature of an excise tax, laid upon the exercise of a
privilege, namely, the privilege of using the mails. The legislature has the inherent
power to select the subjects of taxation and to grant exemptions. The legislature
possesses the greatest freedom in classification.
The classification of mail users is not without any reason. It is based on ability to
pay, let alone the enjoyment of a privilege, and on administrative convenience. The
small amount of five centavos does not justify the great expense and inconvenience
of collecting through the regular means of collection.
The trial court likewise held the law invalid on the ground that it singles out
tuberculosis to the exclusion of other diseases which, it is said, are equally a
menace to public health. But it is never a requirement of equal protection that all
evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.
2. The petitioner further argues that the tax in question is invalid, first, because it is
not levied for a public purpose as no special benefits accrue to mail users as
taxpayers, and second, because it violates the rule of uniformity in taxation.

It is for public purpose. It is sufficient that that the only benefit to which the
taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that derived from his enjoyment of the
privileges of living in an organized society, established and safeguarded by the
devotion of taxes to public purposes.
Nor is the rule of uniformity and equality of taxation infringed by the imposition of a
flat rate rather than a graduated tax. A tax need not be measured by the weight of
the mail or the extent of the service rendered. We have said that considerations of
administrative convenience and cost afford an adequate ground for classification.
The money raised from the sales of the anti-TB stamps is spent for the benefit of the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society, a private organization, without appropriation by law.
But as the Solicitor General points out, the Society is not really the beneficiary but
only the agency through which the State acts in carrying out what is essentially a
public function. The authority given to the Postmaster General to raise funds
through the mails must be liberally construed, consistent with the principle that
where the end is required the appropriate means are given.

Pascual v Secretary of PW
FACTS:
Petitioner, Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted his action for declaratory relief,
with injunction against Republic Act No. 920, entitled An Act Appropriating Funds for
Public Works. It is for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and
improvement" of "Pasig feeder road terminals. At the time of the approval of the
Act, the roads were planned subdivision roads of Jose Zulueta, a senator. Said
public funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the aforementioned
subdivision of respondent Zulueta. Thus, benefiting a private individual contrary for
it to be used for public purpose.
Zulueta subsequently donated his land to the government. That being subject to an
onerous condition, said donation partook of the nature of a contract; that, such, said
donation violated the provision of our fundamental law prohibition members of
Congress from being directly or indirectly financially interested in any contract with
the Government.
RULING: Money raised by taxation can be expanded only for public purposes and
not for the advantage of private individuals.
Right of the legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, under
constitutional provisions against taxation except for public purposes and prohibiting
the collection of a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose,
no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than a public purpose.
The rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a
legislation appropriating local or state public funds is upheld. We entertained the
action of taxpayers impugning the validity of certain appropriations of public funds,
and invalidated the same.

Planters v Fertiphil

Оценить